"THE theme is wide. It spreads far
as the gospel tracks the race, through all climes. It spreads into coming
times, and the endless world. One with Christ, we are one in heart, with
the Church triumphant, as well as the Church militant, and we rejoice in
those who have gone before us, as we do in the prospects of those who are
to come after us.

How glorious is Christ's philosophy! And, were it but
an invention of the schools, how loudly, and widely, and long, would it
have been extolled, for its simplicity and comprehensiveness, its reach
of benevolence, and its power of endurance and achievement.

It shall endure when philosophers that have scouted and
blasphemed it, have gone by. It shall reconcile the race, and heal all
earth's woes and wrongs, by fixing, first the eyes and hearts of men on
the great wrongs of man against his God, and on the one great Remedy of
that wrong in God incarnate, dying and atoning for our sins, and giving
freely, as the boon won by his bitter agonies, the renewing Spirit, and,
among its sweet influences, brotherly concord here, the earnest and the
emblem of a firmer concord, in the larger brotherhood that shall, hereafter,
form the family of heaven."

"As of old the counterfeits of Egyptian sorcery were soon
exhausted, and sunk away, eclipsed by the brighter and vaster miracles
that God's hand wrought for his Israel, so will it be seen in the progress
of the trial, between Christ and Antichrist, that the rod of power, and
the balm of healing, and the palm of victory, are all in the hands of One
Infinite, All-sufficing, and Unchangeable,the only Redeemer and only hope
of the race."

ALLELUIA.

HEPHZIBAH BEULAH.

PART I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

Rev. JOHN REID,
of Lawrieston, in a pamphlet entitled, "Truth no Enemy to Peace,"
in answer to Fletcher's defence of his Scripture Loyalist, Falkirk, 1799,
notes, among others, these general principles:

I. Departure from former laudable attainments, is a
great evil, severely threatened in the Holy Scriptures; and that for which
every one, who is guilty, must be accountable to the Righteous Judge of
all the earth.

The Spirit of truth assures us, "It had been better for
them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have
known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." [2 Pet.
2.21.] Once enlightened, and having openly professed the truth, they cannot
now plead the excuse of ignorance; they stand self-condemned, in the presence
of God, and before the world; their case is exceedingly dangerous.

This is one of the great atrocious evils, for which God
often threatened, and at last severely punished his ancient Israel. By
the mouth of his prophet, Jeremiah, he takes particular notice of their
attainments; and he marks their departure from them, in language of the
strongest reprehension. They were once highly esteemed of the Lord, for
"The kindness of their youth, the love of their espousals, and their going
after him in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel was holiness
unto the Lord, and the first fruits of his increase" But, on account of
their apostacy, they were thus challenged, "What iniquity have your fathers
found in me, that they are gone far from me, and have walked after vanity,
and are become vain?" In JEHOVAH's displeasure, they
are told, "My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me the
fountain of living waters; and have hewed them out cisternsbroken cisterns,
that can hold no water." To convince us that the disease was epidemical,
that all ranks, from the throne to the cottage, were involved in the apostacy,
and that backsliding in the state, as well as in the church, is condemned
and severely punished by God, we are told, "As the thief is ashamed when
he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed, they, their kings, their
princes, and their priests, and their prophets." The evil shall not go
unpunished; they must be accountable for the transgression; "Thine own
wickedness," saith the Righteous Judge, "shall correct thee, and thy backsliding
shall reprove thee: know therefore, and see, that it is an evil thing and
bitter that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God." [Jer. 2.2,3,5,13,26,19.]
That divine injunction, "Whereto we have already attained, let us walk
by the same rule, let us mind the same thing," [Phil. 3.16,] also
proclaims the truth of the proposition; and may be justly considered as
having for its object, every commendable and scriptural attainment, whether
in civil, or religious society. Nor can it be refused, that the Redeemer's
solemn warning to the Church of Sardis, is full and pointed to our purpose:
"Remember," says he, "how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast,
and repent. If, therefore, thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as
a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I shall come upon thee." [Rev.
3.3.]

II. They who consent unto the unrighteous deeds of
others, are chargeable with guilt, as well as the principle actors.

This is a maxim held sacred in all well regulated courts
of judgment, amongst men. Socii criminis, or accomplices in guilt,
are justly considered as objects of the law; and punishable for their consenting,
and being aiding to the crime, though they may not have been the actual
perpetrators thereof. Hence libels usually state, "That such and such persons
have been guilty actors, or act and part: have concurred, or been aiding
and assisting in the wickedness specified."

The proposition likewise receives countenance, from the
oracles of truth. There the despisers of the divine law are sharply reproved,
not simply for the more direct acts of sin, committed by themselves; but
also for consenting to the wicked deeds of others: "When thou sawest a
thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers."
[Psalm 50.18.] What is said, concerning these two atrocious evils,
will hold with respect to any other sin whatever. Consenting unto any sin,
or doing what necessarily involves an approbation of it, must ever be reckoned
criminal, in the sight of God. It is recorded, to the infamy of Saul of
Tarsus, in his state of non-conversion, that when the proto-martyr Stephen
was slain, "Saul was consenting unto his death," [Acts 8.1,] though
it doth not appear, that he took any active part in the perpetration of
the deed. And, as a beautiful contrast of his conduct, it is spoken to
the lasting honor of Joseph, of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim,
that when the rest conspired against the Lord of glory, and agreed to have
him put to death, "He had not consented to the counsel and deed of them."
[Luke 23.51.] He exonered his own conscience, by openly declaring
his disapprobation of their procedure. These words of an inspired prophet,
on this subject, are very remarkable. "The Lord," says he, "spake thus
to me with a strong hand, and instructed me, that I should not walk in
the way of this people, saying, say ye not, A confederacy, to all them
to whom this people shall say, A confederacy." [Isa. 8.11-12.] Approve
not their evil counsels, consent not to their unrighteous deeds, neither
hearken unto their ensnaring advices. The express injunction of Heaven
is, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak
in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment." [Exod. 23.2.]
Here we are commanded, not to suffer ourselves to be influenced by the
voice of a majority, in a bad cause; we are positively forbidden, to decline
after them, or give our consent to their unrighteous determinations.

III. Societies, or individuals, having once publicly
and solemnly vowed unto the Most High God; and still, after the strictest
enquiry, remain satisfied in their own mind, that their vows were scriptural;
should seriously endeavour to act up to the true spirit and intention of
these vows; and no power upon earth, nor any class of men, whether majority
or minority, in a nation, can every possibly dissolve the obligation.

The obligation of every consistent and scriptural vow,
or religious covenant, which is much the same, hath justly been considered
as having something very sacred in it. The reason is obvious: the sovereign
authority of JEHOVAH, is interposed, in requiring
this duty of his people; while his great and dreadful name is solemnly
invoked, in thus obeying his will. "Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God,"
[Psalm 76.11,] is the unequivocal language of the divine law. The
duty, indeed, is confessedly occasional; (i.e.) the consistency,
and propriety, of actually entering into formal vows, or covenants, arise,
in a great measure, out of circumstances, in which the party is placed.
But having once come into these circumstances, the law requires the proper
improvement of them, in this manner. And the party, having endeavoured
so to do; the same law requires the conscientious performance of that which
he hath vowed. "When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for
he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed." [Eccl.
5.4.] Hence, it is clear as noonday, that, strictly and properly speaking,
the obligation always flows from the divine authority of the great Law-giver.
And therefore, though it be but a man's covenant; yet if it contain nothing,
neither in matter, nor manner, but what is agreeable to the spirit and
scope of the Holy Scriptures; its obligation should ever be held sacred.
It is not, we confess, simply considered as the deed of men, binding themselves
and their posterity, that it affects our conscience; but formally viewed
as the deed, which the Lord himself required to be done; as the vow, or
covenant, which he commanded his people to make; and which, having been
once made, he, no less expressly, commands them, conscientiously, to fulfill.
Those, therefore, who feel the weight of such obligations on their conscience,
and are afraid, "After vows to make enquiry," [Prov. 20.25,] may
well be excused.

PART II.

THE NATIONAL COVENANT OF SCOTLAND, AND THESOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT OF SCOTLAND,ENGLAND, AND IRELAND REVIEWED.

1st. Their History.

The Reformation in Scotland was, specially, a "covenanted
reformation." As early as 1557, and while the greater part of the Kingdom
adhered to Popery, the "Lords of the Congregation," as they were afterwards
called, entered into a bond to carry forward religious renovation. This
bond was renewed three times. The last of these was in 1562, when success
had nearly crowned their efforts, and when they could speak in the name
of almost the whole Kingdom. None of these, however, were, strictly national
engagements. The first truly national bond was formed in 1580. The Kingdom
was then decidedly Protestant, and the Church was fully established. James
VI. was then on the throne, his principles were far from being fixed, and
the court was subject to sinister influences, the Church had suffered no
little anxiety from the persevering and unprincipled efforts of some men
of influence to introduce a sort of Episcopacy. The Papists, at home and
abroad, were plotting to overthrow the Reformation. To counteract these
designs and consolidate the friends of truth, the National Covenant was
framed and sworn. It was prepared by John Craig, a Chaplain of the King,
approved and signed by the Assembly of 1581, and then solemnly sworn by
the King, the nobles, the ministers, and the people; and so became properly
and formally a civil and ecclesiastical covenant. It was renewed with an
additional bond, in 1638, at the commencement of the Second Reformation.

The Solemn League and Covenant was framed and sworn in
1643. Scotland had then thrown off the yoke of Episcopacy, which had been
imposed on her, for a time, by the false and tyrannical house of Stewart;
and the Church had been purged from the corruptions induced by two generations
of arbitrary and ungodly prelatic and regal power. A similar movement began
in England 1640. The Long Parliament had met at the summons of Charles
I., acting under Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Earl of Strafford,
for the purpose of procuring means for pursuing the war against the Scots.
Providence ordered it otherwise. A majority of the Parliament were Puritans;
and took measures against the designs of the Court. The issue was a civil
war, in which the aid of the Scots was sought and looking to this the Assembly
of Divines at Westminster was called in 1643, and a League proposed with
Scotland. The Scots insisted upon a League and Covenant which was agreed
to, and Commissioners were sent by Parliament to Scotland. The crisis was
demanding. Scotland was indeed reformed, but many were, in heart with the
King. England had long been trampled upon by the abettors of arbitrary
power; civil liberty was perishing; and no means were untried to break
up the Puritan party. In the field the Puritans had suffered some severe
defeats. Liberty and religion were at stake. Everything dear to man, and
everything dear to the Church, was in danger of being swept into one common
ruin. The call was loud for the friends of Liberty and Religion to unite
in solemn covenant, and it was promptly responded to in the oath of the
Solemn League. Alexander Henderson prepared the document; it was approved
by the Assembly, and the "Convention of Estates," accepted and subscribed
by the English Parliament and Assembly of Divines, and sworn by the friends
of civil and religious liberty in England, Ireland, and Scotland.

2d. Their Tenor.

1. Both contain an engagement to maintain the true religion.
Solemn League:

"We shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace
of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the preservation
of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government, against our common enemies."

Again:

"Endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England
and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according
to the word of God, and the example of the best Reformed churches."

To this just and noble object they gave the first place,
because in this quarter the assault was openly made, and no object was
in their view so important, personally or socially, as the purity and preservation
of the true religion.

2. The National Covenant in its second article renounces
with abhorrence, and in detail the entire system of Popery, its error,
superstition, and tyranny. The second article of the Solemn League is of
the same tenor. The engagement in regard to Popery is, however, expressed
in general terms: Prelacy was then the near and dangerous enemy, and is
renounced in greater detail. Thus:

"That we shall in like manner, without respect of persons,
endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, church government
by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissioners, deans and
chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending
on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever
shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness,
lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive
of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the
three kingdoms."

As no Protestant can take exception to the first article,
no Presbyterian can object to this one. If Prelacy is unscriptural, if
it is, as it has shown itself to be, a fit ally and instrument of despotism,
if it is found in alliance with sentiments opposed to sound, evangelical
doctrine; it must be not merely right, but eminently a duty, to use every
lawful means for its complete "extirpation." "Every lawful means," for
the Covenanters bound themselves to no other. It is not persons, but systems,
and errors, and evils, against which this article is directed. It is framed
in the true spirit of Christian fidelity, which aims to eradicate "every
plant which its heavenly Father hath not planted."

3. The support of scriptural civil government.
This occupies the third place in both. In the National Covenant it is:

"We protest and promise . to defend the king's royal person
and authority in defence of Christ's gospel, the liberty of the subject,
the administration of justice, and the punishment of iniquity."

In the Solemn League:

"We shall, with the same reality, sincerity, and constancy,
in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives mutually
to preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments, and the liberties
of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King's majesty's person
and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion and
liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness with our consciences,
of our loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish
his majesty's just power and greatness."

In their day, these covenants were charged with being seditious,
and subversive of all government; in modern times, they have been opposed
as leaning too strongly to kingly government. Neither charge can be sustained.
They admit the validity of royal power; their framers understood too well
their own rights, and the claims of Christ, to sanction the principle of
absolute or irresponsible power. In the National Covenant, the ends and
obligations of civil authority are clearly stated and the engagement is
to maintain that authority "in defence" of these ends. In the Solemn League
the rights of Parliament are put first, and then what relates to the King's
majesty: and this they will "preserve and defend" only "in defence of true
religion and the liberties of the kingdoms." They evidently regarded the
king, not as a law-maker, but as the executive, and were determined to
restrain the royal authority within its proper limits. Their deeds evidently
so declare. They were at the very time, at war with the king as an assailant
of religion and liberty. It is not strange that an arbitrary king, who
claimed to reign "by the grace of God," and not by the will of the people,
should consider them seditious; but it is strange, that they should be
charged with sanctioning an authority inconsistent with "popular rights."

It is objected that they allow civil authority something
to do "in defence of the true religion." Government as an "ordinance of
God" cannot be neutral; but, as a moral agent, in its own sphere
endeavour to promote the cause of God, the kingdom of Christ, the moral
and religious interests of the nation. Otherwise it is degraded from its
power position, and ceases to be "the ordinance of God," when it disregards
his glory, his chief end in all his works.

4. To the fourth article of the Solemn League, there is
nothing directly corresponding in the National Covenant. It relates to
the opponents of the cause of religion and liberty, and contains a promise
to exercise due diligence in advancing the ends of justice upon all such
persons.

5. The subsequent article is also peculiar to the Solemn
League, and relates to its permanency, and their efforts to promote this.

6. The closing part of these covenants contains personal
engagements of fidelity to each other and the oath of God, and to exercise
constant diligence in all duties and matters of personal religion."1

III. What Hetherington says of the Solemn League.

"It was the noblest bond, in its essential nature and
principles, of all that are recorded among the international transactions
of the world."

"Perhaps no great international transaction has ever been so
much misrepresented and maligned as the Solemn League and Covenant. Even
its defenders have often exposed it and its authors to severe censures
by their unwise modes of defence. There can be no doubt in the mind of
any intelligent and thoughtful man, that on it mainly rests, under Providence,
that noble structure of the British constitution. But for it, so far as
man may judge, these kingdoms would have been placed beneath the deadening
bondage of absolute despotism; and in the fate of Britain, the liberty
and civilization of the world would have sustained a fatal, paralyzing
shock. This consideration alone might bid the statesman pause before he
venture to condemn the Solemn League and Covenant. But to the christian
we may suggest still loftier thoughts. The great principles of that sacred
bond are those of the Bible itself. It may be that Britain was not then,
and is not yet, in a fit state to receive them, and to make them her principles
and rules of national government and law; but they are not on that account
untrue, nor even impracticable; and the glorious predictions of inspired
Scripture foretell a time when they will be more than realized, and when
all the kingdoms of this earth shall become the kingdoms of Jehovah and
of his Anointed, and all shall be united in one Solemn League and Covenant
under the King of Kings and Lord of Lords."2

PART III.

THEIR BINDING OBLIGATIONS SHOWN.

Churches and nations having entered into covenant with
God, the covenant obligation is perpetual, binding the church or nation
in all succeeding generations. Future generations are embraced in the obligation,
because they are represented in the covenant transaction. The whole visible
church is under formal covenant obligation, because of the covenant entered
into by the church at Horeb. And it is so irrespective of any formal recognition
on the part of the church in this, or in any succeeding period of her history.
The obligation of that transaction is perpetual.

The covenant of works is an illustration of this principle.
Adam was the representative of all his natural posterity, and when he sinned,
they sinned in him; because they were included in the obligation of the
covenant by representation.

In the covenant of redemption the same principle is applied.
By it blessings are entailed on persons who were not parties to the covenant.
The Lord Jesus Christ in it, came under obligation to obey the law, and
endure the punishment due to sin, in the place of all whom he represented
in that transaction; and the benefits flowing from the fulfillment of the
obligation are enjoyed by all who were represented by the Redeemer.

Infant baptism is another illustration. The baptismal
obligations which parents take upon them, bind their children when they
arrive at adult years to renounce the world and the flesh.

Political treaties and commercial arrangements entered
into between nations, are held obligatory in succeeding generations. Not
one individual personally concerned may be surviving in one or other of
the commonwealths; and yet, redress for injuries may be claimed and obtained.

The covenant into which Joshua and the princes of the
congregation entered with the Gibeonites [Joshua 9.15,] is recognized
by the Lord, by whom they swore, more than three hundred years afterwards,
when he punished the nation of Israel for having slain some of the Gibeonites.
[2 Sam. 21.1.]

Forty years after the transaction Moses says, "The Lord
our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant
with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this
day." [Deut. 5.2-3.] During this period, the whole congregation
of Israel had died [Numb. 14.29-35.]; that is, all the adults of
whom the congregation consisted when the covenant was made, except Joshua
and Caleb, and Moses himself.

The perpetual obligation of social covenanting arises
out of the nature of ecclesiastical and national society. They are moral
persons; and capable of entering into covenant with God, and when the obligation
is constituted agreeably to his will, it is perpetual; for it is not the
individuals merely of which the society consists, but the society itself,
as a moral person, that covenants. And as in personal covenanting the obligation
extends throughout the whole life, so in social covenanting the obligation
extends throughout the duration of the moral person.

The church is a permanently existing body. The church
in the wilderness of Sinai is identical with the church in the days of
Adam, and is the same moral person now. Covenant obligation entered into
by her, at any time, continues throughout all succeeding generations, and
that too, on the recognized principle that she continues the same moral
person.

National society does not possess an undying constitution
like that of the church; it may be dissolved; but the obligation created
by national covenanting, extends throughout the duration of the society,
because it is a moral person.3

The national covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League
and covenant, are of continued obligation for these reasons:

1. The MATTER of them is moral
and scriptural, and therefore enduring. Till the ends of these deeds
shall have been fully attained, they lay each succeeding generation professing
Christ's truths, and acknowledging the authority of His word, under obligation
to labor for their accomplishment.

2. They were strictly NATIONAL and
ECCLESIASTICAL DEEDS. The supreme
authorities in Church and State entered into them; and these moral persons
yet existing and so long as they do exist, the obligation of these deeds
rest on them and also upon all represented when the obligation was assumed.

3. The Solemn League itself asserts its lasting obligation.
The Covenanters declare themselves bound to endeavor that the nations may
"remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity." [Article
5th.] The General Assembly that proposed and adopted it, declare it to
be "the most powerful means, by the blessing of God, for settling and preserving
the Protestant religion with perfect peace, and propagating the same to
other nations to all ages and generations." [Act 1643.08.17.]

4. Those who suffered in the Prelatic persecution avouched
the perpetual obligation of the covenants, and sealed it with their blood
as a special and prominent article of their testimony. "God," said the
noble MARQUIS OF ARGYLE on the
scaffold, "hath laid engagements on Scotland. We are tied by covenants
to religion and reformation. Those that were then unborn are yet engaged;
and it passeth the power of all the magistrates under heaven to absolve
them from the oath of God."

REV. JAMES GUTHRIE,
who suffered a few days after the Marquis of Argyle, said in his dying
testimony"I do bear my witness to the National Covenant of Scotland, and
the Solemn League and Covenant betwixt the three kingdoms. These sacred,
solemn, public oaths of God, I believe can be loosed by no person, or party,
or power upon earth, but are still binding upon these kingdoms, and will
be for ever hereafter; and are ratified and sealed by the conversion of
many thousand souls, since our entering thereunto." His last words indicate
how cordially he believed in the perpetual obligation of the covenants;
and were prophetic of the revival and triumph of their principles. A few
minutes before he was turned over on the scaffold, raising the cap from
his face, he firmly and loudly exclaimed"The Covenantsthe Covenants
will yet be Scotland's reviving."

5. Since the Revolution in 1688, there have been witnesses
who have testified in behalf of their perpetual obligation. For many years
after the revolution, a number of the most distinguished ministers of the
Established Church of Scotland, continued to plead in their writings for
their obligation, to point out the evils flowing from the neglect and breach
of vows, and to urge upon the church and nation a return to a covenanted
fidelity.

The fathers of the SECCESSION without
exception, professed this doctrine; and though that section of the church
admittedly practices incompatible with the admission of the national obligation
of the Covenants, and the larger part of that Body renounced it, there
has always been a distinguished minority that have firmly maintained it.
John Brown, of Haddington, Dr. McCrie, the historian of Knox, and Melville,
and Stevenson, and Paxton, have emitted vindications, which opponents have
not been able to answer.

The SOCIETY PEOPLE
accounted it their honor to maintain the scriptural principles of the Second
Reformation, and especially to hold fast the sacredness and inviolability
of these vows. The OLD DISSENTERS
refused to incorporate either with the civil or ecclesiastical establishment
of the Revolution, from a faithful regard to the covenants.

The REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, claiming to be the proper descendants of the
covenanted reformers and martyrs, from its earliest organization, embodied
an acknowledgement of the perpetual obligation of the covenants, in the
fundamental articles of its profession; and has been a constant witness
to it.

It has given the most decided and unambiguous testimony
to this important principle, by refusing to incorporate with the national
society, or to take any part in national measures which would, in any degree,
compromise it.4
Those of her sons who emigrated to the United States brought with them
as the most precious part of their inheritance the BANNER OF THE
COVENANT, and planted it on the New World in evidence
of Christ's claims by virtue of his Mediatorial royalty, and the Covenants
of the Mother country. Trying vicissitudes it has experienced, but it waves;
and will continue to wave.

The Reformed Presbytery was constituted in America, in
1774, by Revs. John Cuthbertson, Matthew Linn, and Alexander Dobbin, with
ruling elders. These ministers had been sent from Europe to organize the
church in America.5
The Declaration and Testimony was published in 1806. It asserts that "covenants
entered into by an individual or a community, continue binding upon those
who enter into them, either personally or by their representatives, so
long as such persons live, unless the covenants have limited their own
duration to a certain period." [Page, 247.] The fourth term of communion
asserts, "that the obligation of these covenants," the National Covenant
of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant, "extends to those who
were represented in the taking of them, although removed to this or any
other part of the world, in so far as they bind to duties not peculiar
to the church in the British Isles, but applicable in all lands." At their
ordination ministers and church officers are required to answer affirmatively
this query: "Do you believe that the National Covenant of Scotland, and
the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland, were
entered into agreeably to this permanent institution, and from the unity
of the christian church; that these engagements, divested of any thing
peculiar to the British Isles, are still binding upon the Reformed Church
in every land."

PART IV.

THE POSSIBILITY THAT ADHERENCE TO THEM MAYBE PROFESSED, WHILE THEY ARE VIRTUALLYABANDONED.

Two instances are noted:

1. That of Seceders in their renovation of the Covenants
at Sterling in the year 1743.

"This renovation consists chiefly in the three following
things; in acknowledging the obligation of our Covenants, in confessing
the breach of them, and in a particular application of them to the present
circumstance.

In the first place, We acknowledge the binding
obligation of our Covenants National and Solemn League; agreeably to these
words, 'in regard we are taught by the word of God, and bound by our Covenants
National and Solemn League.' One principal end of our public Covenanting
which is to hold fast what the Church has attained, requires this acknowledgment.
Besides, the respect that our Covenanting has to that of our fathers, is
necessary as an acknowledgement and approbation of the respect which their
Covenanting had to us. Nor indeed, while the renewing of our covenants
is disregarded, can there be any adequate or suitable approbation of them,
especially by those who profess to testify against the corruptions of the
times and to set forward in reformation. Our ancestors made such a profession
in the way of public covenanting. Surely, then, to show the sincerity of
the commendations we bestow upon their covenanting, we should make the
same profession in the same way. Besides, when our ancestors brought their
children under such obligations to be the Lord's people, they meant that
their children should likewise willingly and cheerfully take the same obligations
upon themselves.

Secondly, When we join in the bond for the renovation
of our covenants, we confess the breaches of those sacred engagements;
breaches of them not only in the present but in the former generations.
This is implied in the following words of the bond: 'By the Lord's grace
we shall, according to our several stations, places and callings, contend
and testify against all contrary evils, errors, and corruptions; particularly
Popery, Prelacy, Deism, Arianism, Arminianism, and every error subversive
of the doctrine of grace; as also Independency, Latitudinarian tenents,
and the other evils named in the above confessed sins.'

Thirdly, In the renewing of our covenants, there
is necessarily a particular application of them to our own circumstances.
As it would be the grossest absurdity to suppose that the covenants of
our fathers binding us to regulate our conduct or our testimony for the
truth according to their circumstances and not according to our own; so
our bond, being an explanation of what our covenants oblige us to at present,
is with obvious propriety adapted to our own circumstances. Thus while
we solemnly declare our consent to the obligations that were laid upon
us in the loins of our fathers, we likewise for our own part avouch the
Lord to be our God, engaging to do the duties of our own situation, of
our several places and callings. It is not enough that we approve of the
covenanting of our fore-fathers; the Lord requires us according to the
calls of providence, no less than he required them, to enter into covenant
with him; to vow and pay to him."6

This sketch of their act of renovation impresses the reader
quite favorably; and in their adherence to the covenants, and honourable
mention of the fathers, they furnish a model it would have been well others
had followed. We will turn to the examination of it by the Reformed Presbytery
in their testimony given "at Ploughlandhead, June 6, 1761," which the late
Rev. D. Scott says, is "the most profoundly reasoned document ever emitted
by the Reformed Presbyterian Church."7

"They professedly maintain," Presbytery says, "the moral
and perpetual obligation of the covenants, both National and Solemn League,
entered into for reformation and defence of religion, and bringing the
churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity
in religion, according to the word of God. They also do in the most public
manner profess, that they are the only true faithful witnesses for a covenanted
reformation. But the consistency of such a profession with maintaining
principles diametrically opposite to these covenants, and the cause of
truth, sworn to in them, as has been made evident they do, is altogether
unintelligible. Is it possible strenuously to maintain the lawfulness of
a prelatical government abjured in the covenants, and yet at the same time
sincerely and honestly, according to the profession made by the church,
Psalm
44.17-18, to contend for the moral obligation of the covenants, and the
work of reformation sworn to in them? But further, the necessity of lifting
up a testimony against Seceders, for their treachery and unfaithfulness
in the matter of the covenants, will appear by considering that they, after
making a very solemn profession of renewing the National Covenant of Scotland,
and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three lands, in place of practicing
accordingly, have, in reality, made a new and very different bond or covenant,
both in form and substance, which they have not only sworn themselves,
but imposed upon many honest people; and this as a renewing, nay, as the
only right way of renewing said covenants, according to the circumstances
of the times. That this bond entered into by Seceders, however good
it may be, considered in an abstract sense, is not a renovation of the
national covenants, as they assert it to be, but a treacherous and deceitful
burying of these covenants, as to their sum and substance, is abundantly
evident from their industrious keeping out, and omitting the most part
of them out of their new and artificial bond. Particularly, although they
pretend to a renovation both of the National and Solemn League and Covenant,
yet they have almost entirely left out, and passed over the National Covenant
of Scotland; and satisfying themselves with testifying against Popery,
have omitted all the particular errors and branches thereof expressly contained
in the National Covenant. As to the Solemn League, of which they pretend
their bond is a renovation, there is very little of it to be found therein,
as appears from a comparison of the one with the other. Thus they have
left out that remarkable and necessary clause in the first Article, viz:
"Against our common enemies:" And in place of endeavouring to bring the
churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity
in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory
for Worship and Catechising, as in said article, there is an unintelligible
clause or jumble of words brought in, viz: to promote and advance our covenanted
conjunction and uniformity in religion, just as if that conjunction and
uniformity had a present existence, in its native and original state and
form, in the three lands; when, on the contrary, presbytery is established
in Scotland, yet not on the footing of the word of God and the covenants,
and Episcopacy is established in England and Ireland, in
contradiction to the word of God and the covenants.

2. They have kept out the necessary clause in the 2d Article,
viz: "Without respect of persons, endeavor the extirpation, &c.," and
instead thereof say, "testify against Popery and Prelacy;" where appears
not only a difference in expression, but a substantial difference.

3. They have altogether omitted and kept out the 3rd and
4th Articles.

4. They have kept out that material and necessary clause
in the 5th Article, viz: "That justice may be done on the willful opposers
thereof," in manner expressed in the preceding Article.

5. They have left out all the 6th Article, except these
words: "We shall not give up ourselves to a detestable neutrality and indifference
in the cause of God."

6. They have wholly omitted that material paragraph of
the conclusion of the Solemn League. It is therefore evident, that the
model of the covenants agreed to by Seceders, is different in substance,
as well as form, from our ancient covenants; so that, under pretence of
renovation, they have made a new bond.

But, again, that their pretended renovation is a real
burying of the covenanted reformation, appears from their overlooking,
casting by, and keeping out the National Covenant, as it was renewed in
the year 1638, and the Solemn League and Covenant, as renewed in the year
1648, and going back to the year 1580, and 1581, as the pattern they propose
to follow in carrying out of their covenanted testimony: And what can be
the reason? Can it be, because Prelacy  and the civil places and power
of churchmen, were, by the explication and application of the covenant,
anno
1638, expressly and explicitly condemned, while they were formerly only
implicitly, and by way of consequence? So they have at least, by this step
back, both tacitly condemned our reformers of giving themselves needless
trouble in their explanation of the covenant, as condemning and abjuring
Episcopacy; and also, do overlook, despise, and disgracefully bury the
many advancing steps of reformation attained to in these covenanted lands
betwixt 1638 and 1649, particularly the church of Scotland's testimony
against Prelacy, in which time reformation arrived to a greater height
of purity than ever was attained in any foregoing period of this church
and nation.

But, secondly, They have not only rejected the
renovation of the covenants by our ancestors, 1638 and 1640; but when they
pretend to follow the renovation of the covenant, 1580 and 1581, they have
kept out and perverted almost the whole of the National Covenants, as was
already observed; particularly in their new bond they have cast away the
civil part of the covenants altogether.

. Again, as the covenants require no other than a lawful
magistrate; and seeing Seceders acknowledge the present as lawful,
and that it is their duty to be subject to and support them as such, it
is impossible to conceive any reason, why they have not honored the present
rulers with a place in their new and artificial bond; unless perhaps this,
that they were aware that would have been so glaring a contradiction to
these covenants they were pretending to renew, as would doubtless have
startled and driven away from them a good many honest people, whom they
have allured and led aside by their fair-set speeches; Again, as their
bond is supposed to reduplicate upon the National Covenants, and so bind
to every article in them, by native consequence, they swear to a prelatical
government; for seeing they have made no exception in their bond, it must
be applied to no other, but the government which presently exists; and
this, in flat contradiction to the covenants, by which such a government
is abjured, so that their new bond is no less opposite to the National
Covenants, and is much more deceitful, than if they had plainly and explicitly
sworn allegiance to the present government therein; only the generality
of their implicit followers do not so readily observe it. Upon the whole,
how strange is it, that they should have the assurance to father their
deceitful apostacy, and wretched burying of the covenants upon our reformers .
A people may very lawfully, by a new bond, enlarge and add to their former
obligations, that they brought themselves under; yet they can never, without
involving themselves in the guilt of perjury, relax or cancel former obligations
by any future bond. Accordingly, our worthy ancestors, by all the new bonds
they annexed to former obligations, were so far from attempting to loose
themselves from any covenanted duty that either they or their fathers were
priorly bound unto, that they thereby still brought themselves under straighter
bonds to perform all their former and new obligations of duty to God. But
as has been discovered, Seceders, by their artificial bond, have
cast out the very substance and spirit of the covenants, by their rumping
and hewing them at pleasure, to reduce them to the sinful circumstance
of the time; and thus, in contradiction to their own public profession,
that these covenants are moral in their nature and obligatory upon these
nations to the latest posterity. How surprising it is then, that after
such a profession, they dare cast out of their bond the greatest parts
of the covenants! This is not only to break these obligations, but it is
to make a public declaration, that different times and circumstances do
free men from their obligation to keep their most solemn vows to the Most
High. To this, as specially applicable, may be subjoined the words of Mr.
Case, in a sermon relative to the covenants: "Others have taken it," viz.
the covenant, "with their own evasions, limitations, and reservations;
such a Jesuitical spirit is got in among us, by which means it comes to
pass, that by that time that men have pared off and left out, and put what
interpretation they frame to themselves, there is little left worth the
name of a covenant." And, indeed so many are the self-inconsistencies and
gross contradictions attending this new bond, that it would have been much
more for the honor both of the covenants, and of Seceders themselves,
rather never to have attempted such a work, than to have done it in a way
of tearing to pieces our solemn national vows. Wherefore the Presbytery
cannot but, in testifying against them for their unfaithfulness, obtest
all the lovers of truth, to beware of joining in this course of treachery
and apostacy from God and his covenanted cause."8

2. Our New Lights. At the time of the division in 1833,
the consideration of the draft of a covenant was before the church. It
was written by Dr. Alexander McLeod, and had been submitted to the synods
in Scotland and Ireland in 1830. "It is evident, that this covenant was
designed for the several Presbyterian Churches as a means to bring about
a union on a scriptural basis."9
After the division they struck out the following paragraph in the first
article of the bond"Assured ourselves that this religion is, in agreeableness
to the word of God, summarily set forth in confessions and catechisms of
the churches of the Reformation, and more especially and comprehensively,
in the standards compiled by the assembly of divines at Westminster, England,
with commissioners from the church of Scotland, for the furtherance of
uniformity in doctrine, worship, church government, and discipline, among
christians in the British empire, and in all the nations."

They give the following reasons for striking out:

"1. Now it is verily believed that there are many, both
among ministers and private members, who have never read, or even seen,
all 'the confessions and catechisms of the churches of the Reformation.'
How then can any conscientious Covenanter declare on oath, 'I am assured
that these documents,' many of which I have never seen or heard, 'are agreeable
to the word of God.' Surely such an act could not be performed with due
intelligence.

"2. Even the fact of the existence of the Westminster
assembly, has been for several generations a matter merely of human history.
The faith in such an event, can therefore be only human.
But the faith of the members of the church of God, should rest upon divine
testimonyon the record of God alone, and not on any human authority. Such
a faith could not be that of God's elect.

"3. There is an ambiguity in the sentence beginning with
'We accordingly recognize the faithful contendings of our predecessors
for civil and religious freedom, and the binding obligations of
these covenants, both National and Solemn League, as originally framed
and sworn, and at several times renewed in their true spirit
and designs.' Here the Covenanter declares his recognition of the
binding
obligation of the covenants, both National and Solemn League, as well
as his approbation of the faithful contendings of the confessors
of the Redeemer. This is all right. Yet that such deeds were ever transactedthat
such covenants were ever entered into, has no other evidence than mere
historical record, and, consequently, ought not to be made an article of
the believer's faith."10
Therefore they substituted for the part stricken out the following: "Regarding
with all due respect, so far as we know and understand them, the confessions
and catechisms of the churches of the reformation, and more especially
the more comprehensive standards, compiled by the assembly of divines,
at Westminster, England, with commissioners from the church of Scotland,
for the furtherance of uniformity in doctrine, worship, church government
and discipline, among christians in the British empire, and all the nations;
we accordingly highly appreciate the faithful contendings of our
predecessors for civil and religious freedom, the binding obligation of
the covenants, National and Solemn League, as originally framed and sworn,
and afterwards renewed in their true spirit and designs."

Even with these alterations, they excluded it from the
body of the covenant, and placed it in the preamble.

They altered the expressions in the second paragraph,
as the covenant had passed in overture; and instead of "assured ourselves,
that this religion is in agreeableness to the word of God, summarily set
forth in the confessions and catechisms," they say: "Regarding with all
due respect, so far as we know and understand them." Instead of "we accordingly
recognize
the faithful contendings," they say, "we accordingly 'highly appreciate.'"
They then transpose it and put it out of the oath, into the preamble.
Evidently they designed to make it as general as possible. The old covenants
were too pointed and specific. Men who did not believe our
principles, could not swear them. This latitudinarian covenant might
accomplish an object so desirable as entering into a mutual bond, even
when we did not agree in a number of important principles. It was to accomplish
this design, that the clause was introduced, "We shall enquire diligently
what part conforms most to the Holy Scriptures, take our stand in
that communion which is found most pure."

This covenant was evidently intended to be a substitute
for all the old covenants, referred to in our "Terms of Ecclesiastical
Communion," if not in place of the "terms" themselves. As it returned from
Europe, the draft recognized, and expressly asserted, in the body of the
covenant, the binding obligation of the covenants of our fathers,
but as they made it, neither directly nor indirectly does
it acknowledge such binding and descending obligation, on covenanters in
America;
and this seems the more strange considering that such obligation is expressly
stated in the "Terms of Communion." Reference to confessions, catechisms,
or former covenants is thrust out of the oath and inserted in the preamble,
which forms no part of the oath; and say they "regard with all due
respect," and "highly appreciate" the faithful contendings and binding
obligation of the covenants, National and Solemn League. They will not
swear to the maintenance of the documents named because, "it has been,
for several generations, a matter merely of human historythe fact of the
existence of the Westminster assembly."

In this singular document there is no recognition of any
descending obligation upon posterity. It is to terminate, for any thing
we can perceive, upon the actual Covenanters. This is in perfect keeping
with the exclusion of the subordinate standards from the covenant, which
is in direct opposition to both the "National Covenant," and "Solemn League
and Covenant." The reason is they neither believed all the doctrines
contained in the standards referred to, nor do they believe themselves
to have any thing to do with the covenants as binding in America.

This modern covenant, taken in connection with the comments
and alterations made by them, is in direct opposition to five of the queries
put to ministers at their ordination, in the Reformed Presbyterian Church,
solemnly taken by these ministers at their ordination, and, consequently,
totally opposed to their own solemn vows. The 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th
queries, are referred to as demonstrating the truth of this allegation.
These queries form part of a solemn covenant, made with the presbytery,
and the whole church, on the day of ordination. No man, with us, can be
ordained to the office of the holy ministry, without giving an unqualified
assent to them. It is, and always has been, considered by our church as
a most solemn covenant with God and his people. These men have thus engaged,
and they know it.11

The covenant of Dr. McLeod, not of course as adjusted
after the division, was put by synod, in 1869, into the hands of its committee
on covenanting. The senior editor of the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter,
who was on the committee says, "There is some uncertainty in regard to
the intention of synod in referring this document to the committee. It
is evident that his covenant was designed for the several Presbyterian
Churches as a means to bring about a union on a scriptural basis. Is this
the kind of a covenant that the committee is expected to report to synod
at its next meeting? Or is it a bond suited to our own church that is wanted?
As a member of the committee, we feel that there is need of light on this
subject. If the former is the kind of bond to be reported, it would be
hard to improve on the one put into the committee's hand; if the latter,
something entirely different is required."12
Judging from the draft submitted and approved, it would appear that his
first question was answered affirmatively, and the pattern followed except
in relation to the obligation of the covenants, National and Solemn League,
which, with their names, are not even in the preamble.

Seceders professed adherence to the covenants, and even
claimed to be the only true covenanters of their time, while they abandoned
their grand principles. New Lights, consistently altered their terms of
communion, ceased to call themselves covenanters, and choose the more popular
name, Reformed Presbyterian, but profess to honor the Martyrs as their
predecessors. They even adopted this resolution, "That as in time past,
so now, we affectionately adhere to the whole doctrine and principles of
order of the covenanted reformation, as stated in our excellent standards;
and sincerely resolve, through the grace of God, to abide in, maintain,
and apply the said principles, in all times coming to the great affairs
of life and godliness, as the Lord may furnish opportunity." [Minutes,
Aug. 1833, p. 36.]

PART V.

THE COVENANT SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BY SYNODAT PITTSBURGH, MAY 27TH, 1871.

I. THE OATH.

Passing, at present, the confession of sins, and, to economize,
omitting introductory, explanatory, and intensifying expressions, it is
as follows:

1. We receive for ourselves and for our children the Lord Jesus
Christ as He is offered in the Gospel to be our Saviourthe Holy Spirit
to be our Enlightener, Sanctifier, and Guideand God, the Father, to be
our everlasting portion; we approve and accept of the Covenant of Grace
as all our salvation and desire, and take the moral law as dispensed by
the Mediator, to be the rule of our life.

We will, in reliance upon God's grace, diligently attend to searching
the scriptures, religious conversation, the duties of the closet, the household,
and fellowship-meeting and the sanctuary, and will seek in them to worship
God in spirit and in truth. We promise to depart from all iniquity, and
to live soberly, righteously, and godly, commending and encouraging, temperance,
charity and godliness.

2. We profess and own this (the system of faith, order and worship revealed
in the scriptures, and summarized in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms,
and Reformed Presbyterian Testimony, Form of Church Government and Directory
for Worship) as the true Christian faith, and the system of order and worship
appointed by Christ for his house, and we will endeavour to understand
it more fully, to hold and observe it, and to transmit the knowledge of
the same to posterity. We reject whatever is known by us to be contrary
to the Word of God, our recognized and approved manuals of faith and order,
and the great principles of the Protestant Reformation. We abjure and condemn
Infidelity, Atheism, Pantheism, Naturalism, Spiritualism, Indifferentism,
Formalism. We abjure and condemn Popery.

Believing Presbyterianism to be the only divinely instituted form of
government in the christian church, we disown all other forms of ecclesiastical
polity.

We reject all systems of false religion and will-worship, all forms
of secret oath-bound societies and orders, and pledge ourselves to pray
and labor that whatever is contrary to godliness may be removed, and the
Church beautified with universal conformity to the law and will of her
Divine Head and Lord.

3. We will maintain the responsibility of nations to God, the rightful
dominion of Jesus Christ over the commonwealth, and the obligation of nations
to legislate in conformity with the written Word. We take ourselves bound
to regulate all our civil relations by our allegiance to the Lord, our
King, Saviour and Judge; and are pledged to promote the interests of public
order and justice, to support whatever is for the good of the commonwealth
in which we dwell, and to pursue this object in all things not forbidden
by the law of God, or inconsistent with public dissent from an unscriptural
or immoral power.

We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our country, and
for its reformation by constitutional recognition of God as the source
of all power, Jesus Christ as the Ruler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures
as the supreme rule, and of the true Christian religion; and we will continue
to refuse to incorporate any act, with the political body, until this blessed
reformation has been secured.

4. We will pray and labor for the visible oneness of the church of God,
on the basis of truth and of Scriptural order. We will strive to maintain
christian friendship with pious men of every name, and to feel and act
as one with all in every land who pursue this grand end. We will labor
to remove stumbling-blocks, and to gather into one the scattered and divided
friends of truth and righteousness.

5. We dedicate ourselves to the work of making known God's light and
salvation among the nations, and will labor that the church may be provided
with an earnest, self-denying and able ministry. We will by our prayers,
pecuniary contributions, and personal exertions, seek the revival of pure
religion, the conversion of Jews and Gentiles to Christ.

6. We will bear testimony in word and deed for every known part of divine
truth, and for all the ordinances appointed by Christ; and we will tenderly
and charitably, but plainly and decidedly, oppose and discountenance all
known error, immorality, neglect or perversion of divine institutions.
We will strive to hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.

We enter upon this solemn act with unfeigned purpose of paying our vow.
All sinister and selfish ends and motives we disown, and protest that we
have no aim but the glory of God, and the purest and everlasting welfare
of immortal souls.

II. OPINIONS OF IT.

Of those who swear it there are two classes; some enthusiastically
admire, and speak of it as much superior to any thing of the kind ever
produced. Rev. J. Galbraith says, "The bond of the covenant sworn and subscribed
by synod on last Saturday, places us even in advance of the position, noble
as it was, occupied by those fathers who swore the National Covenant of
Scotland, or those who swore the Solemn League and Covenant. Greater far
the honor conferred upon the one hundred and forty-four who lifted up their
right hands to God, to swear fidelity and allegiance to the throne of God
in this land, than upon the others, who more than two centuries ago, in
vast multitudes, swore their allegiance to their heavenly King, in the
British isles."13

Others, look upon it with some suspicion and go into it
with hesitancy. Others must have their views of it definitely expressed
and understood before they will have anything to do with it. Some maintain
that it is a renovation of the Covenants, National and Solemn League. Others,
that it is a new covenantan American covenant; and for American Covenanters.

2. Of those who dissented from its adoption by synod.
In their reasons they say:

"It is a new covenant, entirely distinct from and a substitute
for our present covenants, the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn
League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, which we acknowledge to be binding
on us and on our posterity, and on all represented in the taking of them,
and must bind, until their great and Christ-honoring ends have been attained."14

3. Of the Reformed Presbyterian Witness of Glasgow, Scotland.
After giving the covenant entire he says:

"That this is an interesting and important document no one
can deny; and were it taken by a church, which had not heretofore been
in covenant with God through the continued obligation of their father's
engagements, which had uniformly maintained that continued obligation,
we would regard the taking of this covenant as a step in advance; but for
any section of the Covenanting Church, which has heretofore witnessed for,
and held themselves bound by, the British Covenants, to substitute this
bond for these covenants, we cannot but regard as a step of retrogression.

We regard this Bond as a very unsatisfactory termination to all the
efforts and preparations made by our American brethren for the work of
covenanting . It has been occasionally before the Synod, for the last twenty-five
years, and always, till of late, in the respect of a Renovation of our
father's Covenants in a manner adapted to the circumstances in which they
are placed. Whilst there are many excellent things in this New Bond;
this peculiarly American Covenant, we cannot but regard it as not
in keeping with the original intentions of the fathers of the church, or
consistent with the previous action, and expressed intention, of synod."15

PART VI.

IS IT A RENOVATION OR A NEW COVENANT?

In settling this question, we must first ascertain what
it is to renew our covenants.

1. To help us, in this matter, we have approved examples.
Those of the Reformed Presbyterian Church are, of course, preferred. In
1689, immediately after the church emerged from her twenty-eight years
of bloody persecution, the persecuted Remnant at Lesmahagow, in Clydesdale,
renewed the covenants. During that time they were disregarded, their obligation
denied, and the Deeds themselves ignominiously burned, in London, Edinburgh,
and Linlithgow. Taking them, was declared to be treason; and defending
them by word or writing, was criminal in law. All acts made in their favor,
and in favor of Reformation, between 1638 and 1650, were rescinded; and
such Oaths, Bonds, Tests, and Indulgences were imposed, as ensnared and
polluted the consciences of those who took them. From 1660 to 1688 about
18,000 Presbyterians are supposed to have suffered; some imprisonment,
some banishment, and some tortures and death.16
"When Hampden, Russel, and Sidney were pouring out their
eloquence, and their blood as
patriots in England, the Scottish
Covenanters were devoting themselves in martyrdom, to the reformation
of the world." It was fit, as soon as opportunity was afforded, that the
persecuted should renew their covenant engagements. The form we believe,
was by reproducing the deeds, an acknowledgment of sins, and an engagement
to duties. This form was observed in the renewing at Auchensaugh, July
24th, 1712. The covenants, National and Solemn League with marginal explanatory
notes were engrossed, "a solemn acknowledgment of public sins and breaches
of the covenants" followed; and then "a solemn engagement to the
duties contained in our National and Solemn League and Covenantparticularly
adjusted to the circumstances of these times, Anno. 1712."

That this was a renewal of the covenants no one
can doubt. "It exemplified how a minority ought to adhere to public covenants,
under apostacy; distinguished the substance of the covenants, from their
accidents; brought the covenants, and the breach of them to scriptural
test, and specified those sins, national, ecclesiastical, and personal,
which had provoked God to plead a controversy with the land. The approbation
of this transaction was a condition of Admission into the community of
Old Dissenters, from the time that it was sworn; and, when the Reformed
Presbytery was constituted 1743, it was formally established and announced
as a special Term of Communion, and continued so, until 1800, when it was
united with the Article, acknowledging the obligation of the covenants,
National and Solemn League, upon posterity."17
They were renewed also at Crawford John, in 1745.

Another form of renewal was adopted by the Reformed Presbyterian
Synod of Ireland, and sworn at Dervock, October 12th, 1853. It is called
an "Act of covenant renovation; in which the National Covenant of Scotland,
and the Solemn League and Covenant, are renewed, in accommodation to the
present time." In the preamble it is said:

"Regarding its rise"the Covenanted Reformation"and establishment
as a singular and eminent fruit of the Divine favor to the lands of our
nativity, we this day recognize the Scriptural excellence of its grand
principles as they were embraced by the church and kingdom of Scotland,
and as exhibited in the National Covenant, and afterwards avouched in the
Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms. These federal deeds,
being moral and scriptural in their nature, and entered into by these nations
through their representatives, are and will be binding upon them till the
latest posterity. We gladly express our approval of the conduct of our
worthy ancestors who renewed the National Deedsrelying on the strength
of Divine grace, to renew the National Covenant, and the Solemn League
and Covenant, in the terms of this bond." In the oath we find ranked with
the doctrinal standards of the church, "the National Covenant, and Solemn
League and Covenant." "We recognize the obligation of the Public Covenants"and
"this act of Covenant Renovation."

Although in this act of renovation the covenants are not
present, there is no room to doubt that the synod designed to renew at
least its adherence to them. The covenant at Pittsburgh is not a renewal
according to either of these forms. We do not find any form, after which
it is patterned; unless it is that of Dr. McLeod, remodeled by the New
Lights. But that covenant, neither in form nor intention, was a renewal
of the covenants. It was a solemn league in which there was inserted a
recognition of "the binding obligation of the covenants, National and Solemn
League""designed for the several Presbyterian churches as a means to bring
about a union."

2. Personal opinion The late Professor Rev. J. M. Wilson,
acting on a commission on covenanting in 1845, says, "Agreeably to the
tenor of their appointment, two courses were open to them. They might either
undertake the drafting of an entirely new bond, embodying in it the substance
of the National Covenant and the Solemn League, or they might merely prepare
these covenants by means of marginal notes for renovation at the present
time; appending such a bond as would answer the twofold purpose of expounding
the import of the covenants, and at the same time constitute an integral
part of the vow. The committee resolved to pursue the last of these methods.
First, a confession of sins; second, the covenants, with notes; third,
an additional bond. As to the plan pursued by the commission, we believe
it to be the only safe, as we are assured it is the only practicable one.
It would be impracticable to form a new bond, and even if it could be done,
we thing it would not be wise to attempt it."18

He considered the plan of the Pittsburgh covenant impracticable;
but if practicable, "unwise to attempt it."

In a notice of the covenant of the Synod of Ireland, he
says, "The original covenants are omitted. We feel satisfied they should
be retained."19

In the report of the committee of the Reformed Presbyterian
Synod of Scotland, on covenant renovation, presented to synod at its meeting
at Glasgow, June 6th, 1871, it is said, "The primary point to be sought
is, the maintenance of the unimpaired obligation of the Covenants on the
nation and the church, inasmuch as the ends for which these were entered
into have not yet been attained. In framing the bond or oath, the draft
of which we have now laid on your table, we deem it desirable not to embody
an outline of the matter of the Covenants as was at one time contemplated,
lest our Act of Covenant renovation should bear any resemblance to superceding
in any way the original Covenants. This bond is simply an oath, designed
to pledge the Covenanter in the most solemn manner to the Covenants themselves."20

It is admitted by this committee and Professor Wilson,
that the covenants might be renewed by a bond embodying their principles.
This method both committees rejected; the Professor said it was "impracticable,"
but if practicable, "unwise to attempt it."

Notwithstanding this belief and the rejection of this
method, by these committees, may not synod have adopted it with entire
success? In the almost entire want of evidence, that the idea of renewal
by embodiment or otherwise, had any place in the action of synod, we turn
with pleasure to the letter of Rev. James Kennedy, to the Reformed Presbyterian
Witness. He says the covenant "is an embodiment and clear statement
by the church of all in the British Covenants she had ever regarded as
of moral obligation upon her in this land." He admits that she has not
embodied all the principles of the covenants, only those "she has regarded
as of moral obligation in this land." Then, even by embodiment, synod's
covenant is not a renewal of the British covenants, only in part. He does
not call it a renovation; he says it is "an embodiment and clear statement""an
application of the British covenants." He says it "embraces more fully
the spirit and design of the vows entered into by our fathers in the Reformation
than was the case in any previous attempt in the same direction." Are covenants
renewed by embracing their spirit and design? he says, it is so clearly
identified with them in many of the expressions employed, that no ambiguity
could possibly exist as to their relationship." It is not the covenants
renewed, but a relation. How sib the reader may infer. He admits
that it is an American covenant. "Americanizing the covenants,"
he says, "is just adapting them to our circumstances in America." Synod's
covenant is an adaptation. He uses the expression "any other act
of Covenant Renovation," and cites a resolution of synod in which "Covenant
Renovation" occurs, but does not say that synod renewed or designed to
renew the Covenants. Apologizing for the speeches made in Synod he says
they meant that "without some such adaptation as was attempted in the bond,
they," the Covenants, "were not suited for an Act of covenanting by the
church in North America." If not suited to covenanting they are not better
suited to Terms of Communion, or to vows at ordination by ministers, elders
and deacons, in North America.

But let us turn to the covenant itself. Read it from end
to end, and over again, confession and covenant; and there is not one word
about the renewal of any thing, or of a design to renew any thing. "Covenanting"
is named; "forgetfulness of the obligations laid on us by the covenants
of our fathers," is bewailed; "all that is moral in the covenants of our
worthy religious progenitors of the Second Reformation," is recognized
in a statement at the end of the confession of sins; but in the oath, which
is or is not the renewal, the only phrase from which it can be learned
that any previous vows or covenants existed, is, "in faithfulness to our
own vows, and the covenants of our fathers." To what "covenants of our
fathers" there is reference, we are left to conjecture. Did ever any thing
like this occur before in any thing pretending to be a renovation of the
Covenants? The Seceders renewed them by name; the New Lights took their
names from the oath but gave them a place in the preamble. The Synod of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America at Pittsburgh, May, 1871,
determinedly and persistently refused their names a place in its covenant
any where! This is new, not a renewal.

Mr. Kennedy says, "the names of the British Covenants
belonging to the local and circumstantial, Why then in an American covenant?"
Why, indeed, "in an American covenant?" unless, the American covenant was
intended to be a renewal of them; and then, necessarily, it would say of
what covenants it was a renewal. Are the names "National Covenant" and
"Solemn League and Covenant" local and circumstantial, and unnecessary
therefore to an American covenant? If so they are equally unnecessary to
American Terms of Communion and American ordination vows. "That they might
suitably have occupied a place in the preamble is the decided opinion of
many, and it is ours; and we know that a proposal in committee to insert
in the preamble and expression 'We renew the National Covenant and the
Solemn League and Covenant, in the terms of this Bond, adapted to
our present condition and circumstances in this country,' was most cordially
accepted, and would, there is reason to believe, have been accepted by
Synod." Mr. Kennedy knew that a remonstrance and petition from Coldenham
was before the committee, transferred by the New York Presbytery, and the
committee did not accept of it. He knew also, that a motion to amend the
draft by inserting their names was voted down by Synod. The reason of this
persistent refusal to insert their names appears from the speeches in Synod.
Rev. A. M. Milligan said, "Why need we name the National Covenant of Scotland
any more than a Covenant of Germany." Rev. S. Carlisle, said, "We have
now, in the Bond all we want." Rev. S. O. Wylie said, "There is a reason
why the documents are not named in the Bond. The committee drafting it
was unanimous in that reason, viz: the aim of our Bond is to Americanize
the covenants of our ecclesiastical ancestors, to adapt the form and expression
of the old covenants to the condition of the church in the United States
and in which she is placed. The design of the drafting committee was to
have an American Covenant, not a British, for the American church,
so that we can say to applicants for membership, this is our covenantour
National Covenant." Rev. J. S. T. Milligan cared little whether we mention
the Covenants or not. He had examined them and believed "our bond is in
advance of them. Let us bury the body of Moses in Moab, lest it be worshiped."21

The attempt to show that the Covenant is a renewal, in
any form, failsall the evidence shows that it is a new covenant and designedly
different from the covenants, National and Solemn League.

PART VII.

THE COVENANT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THAT THECHURCH IS BOUND TO IN AMERICA.

I. She is bound to the Covenants, National and Solemn
League.

She is pledged to them as a component part of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church which originated with these covenants; and however
numerous her parts, wherever organized, however separated by territorial
boundaries or oceans, the Reformed Presbyterian Church is one, as it respects
their obligation. As organized in America, she renewed them by her representatives
at Auchensaugh and Crawford-John. Her Societies assumed them at Octorara,
Pennsylvania, in 1743;22
and thus one hundred and twenty-nine years ago, and while the United States
were colonies of Great Britain, itself bound by these covenants, the banner
of Messiah was planted here, and took possession of the New World in his
name, as its rightful Lord; claiming for him, whether under Colonial or
Republican government, the homage and obedience of its inhabitants. This
banner waves for these ends yet, and must wave until he is acknowledged,
his law and his church established.

She is bound to them by her 4th Term of Communion. "That
those vows, namely, that which was entered into by the church and kingdom
of Scotland, called the NATIONAL COVENANT,
and that which was afterwards entered into by the three kingdoms, of Scotland,
England, and Ireland, and by the Reformed churches in those kingdoms, usually
called the Solemn League and Covenant, were entered into in the true spirit
of that institutionand that the obligation of these covenants extends
to all represented in the taking of, although removed to this or any other
part of the world, insofar as they bind to duties not peculiar to the church
in the British isles, but applicable in all lands."

Her ministers, elders and deacons have solemnly pledged
themselves to them, as required by the 5th query at ordination. "Do you
believe that the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and
Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland were entered into agreeably
to this permanent institution, and from the unity of the Christian church;
that these engagements, divested of any thing peculiar to the British isles,
are still binding upon the Reformed Church in every land?

There is, in the covenant, no pledge to them; their names
are not found in it.

II. She is bound to maintain the descending
obligation of the covenants, National and Solemn League, on all "represented
in the taking of them," "divested of anything peculiar to the British Isles."

This principle has been ever kept prominently before all,
by the testimony of Covenanters in every land. It is not in the covenant.
The only thing that has any relation to it, is in the phrases, paragraph
6th, "in faithfulness to our own vows, and to the covenants of our fathers."
The phrase, "in faithfulness to our own vows," etc., as it stands in the
Covenant, is not a pledge; it is the reason prompting to the pledge which
follows; but even were it a pledge, it is not the pledge of the 4th Term
and 5th Query. The phrase, "covenants of our fathers," is so wanting in
point, that it points to nothing.

III. She is bound to maintain that by the
ordinance of God, Nations as well as the Church, should enter into Covenant
with Him.

This is implied in maintaining the binding obligation of
the covenants, National and Solemn League upon the British Nation. Were
it not dutiful to enter into covenant with God, the covenant when made,
would not be binding. The propriety is implied in all national religious
acts. "Prophecy assures us that the kingdoms of this world shall become
the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, and when that period arrives,
there shall be no reluctance manifested by the nations to swear allegiance
to the Redeemer. No lack then of National Covenants. Rather shall the nations
vie with each other in eagerness to do homage to the Saviour-Prince; and
instead of saying, as now, "Let us break asunder his bands, and cast his
cords from us," in the spirit of devoted loyalty shall they cry, "Come
and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant, that shall
not be forgotten."23
Nations, having a moral and even a religious character it must be admitted,
are competent to enter into such solemn engagements. Rev. J. M. Wilson,
commenting on Article 17th, of the Testimony of the United Presbyterian
Church of North America says, "not a word of national covenanting.
It is very distinctly excluded. The duty of nations to enter into covenant
with God, is completely left out of view. We were aware that in recognizing
the obligation of the covenants of our ancestors, it was the custom frequently
to speak of the 'civil part' of the covenants as obsolete, or at least
altogether inapplicable in this land: but we are surprised to find so formal
an omission of any reference to the national aspect of the duty . It is
unnecessary to enter upon any course of reasoning, to demonstrate that
nations are required to enter into covenant with the living God.
Whether we look to scriptural example, or to prophecy, or to the past history
of the more intelligent, and faithful, and honored of the servants and
witnesses of Christto Horeb, to Jerusalem in the days of Asa, Josiah,
Hezekiah, or Nehemiah; to such prophecies as Isaiah 29, or Rev. 11.15;
to the Waldenses, the Continental, or the English and Scotch Reformers,
we learn the same lesson of National covenantingapproved of God."24

Referring to the Covenant we find in Section 3rd, 2d paragraph.
"We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our country, and for
its
reformation by a constitutional recognition of God as the source of all
power, of Jesus Christ as the Ruler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures
as the supreme rule, and of the true Christian Religion." That is, the
oath binds to all comprised in the efforts of "the National Reform Association,"
except the phrase "and of the true Christian Religion," the immediate recognition
of which, possibly, that association does not intend. But there is nothing
of National Covenanting. Professor Wilson's remarks, quoted above, read
as if referring to the Covenant of Synod, sworn at Pittsburgh.

IV. She is bound to the Westminster Form of
Church Government and the Directory for Worship agreed upon by the Assembly
of Divines at Westminster, "as they were received by the Church of Scotland."

This clause, "as they were received by the Church of Scotland,"
is essentially important. Immensely valuable as are the Westminster Standards
as faithful embodiment of the teachings of the scriptures on doctrinal
faith, and ecclesiastical practice, this clause is "the place of the seal"
of their integrity and purity, appended by the Reformed Church in the day
of her highest attainments. Good and necessary reasons were these for our
church to insert it in her Terms. In doing so, she followed approved example.
In the "Engagement to do duties contained in our National and Solemn League
and Covenant" at Auchensaugh after naming the Confession of Faith, Catechisms,
Terms of Christian doctrine and Directory for Worship," it is said, "as
the same was received and observed by the Church in her purest times, viz:
in the year 1649." This also in a footnote"Nota. The Confession of
Faith is here adhered to, as it was received and approved by the General
Assembly of this Church by their Act of the 27th of August, 1647, Session
23, the 2d Article of the 31st Chapter, being understood, as explained
in that Act, and the 4th Section of the 23rd Chapter being understood,
as it is explained in our Informatory Vindication, page 196, 2d edition."25

This important and distinguishing reception of the Westminster
Standard, by this clause in our Terms, is kept before the church; her communicants
coming to the Lord's Table asseverate it, and parents at the baptism of
their children assume it and obligate their children thereto.

It identifies the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America
with the Church of Scotland, as she was in her organization, Confession
of Faith, Covenant obligation and Acts of Assembly between 1638 and 1649.

It distinguishes her from all the other branches of the
Presbyterian family, all of which receive those standards without any such
clause; and some of them have conformed them, by changes, to their own
wishes.

Our distinctive position can be preserved only by continuing
to adhere to this clause; and thereby occupy the ground the church of Scotland
occupied by her adopting acts.

The objects of the Church of Scotland in cooperating with
the Assembly at Westminster, was, (1,) to preserve the reformed religion,
as she had attained it, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government;
(2,) the reformation of the church in England; and, (3,) union with her
on the basis of the Solemn League when she should attain the standard of
reformation, attained in Scotland. In evidence we turn to the Solemn League:

"Wefor the preservation of our religionwith our hands lifted
up to the Most High God, do swear, (1.) That we shall sincerely, really,
and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavor, in our several places
and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of
Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and governmentthe reformation
of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship,
discipline and government, according to the word of God, and the example
of the best Reformed Churches; and shall endeavor to bring the churches
of God in the three kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction and uniformity
in religion."

The Solemn League was sworn 1643. The Assembly at Edinburgh,
August 27, 1647, approved the Confession as "a Confession of Faith for
the kirks of God in the three kingdoms, being the chiefest part of the
uniformity in religion, which by the Solemn League and Covenant, we are
bound to endeavour:"

"It is hereby expressly declared and provided, that the not
mentioning in this confession the several sorts of ecclesiastical officers
and assemblies, shall be no prejudice to the truth of Christ in these particulars,
to be expressed fully in the Directory of Government. It is further declared,
that the Assembly understandeth some parts of the second Article of the
thirty-first chapter only of kirks not settled, or constituted in point
of government: And that although, in such kirks, a Synod of Ministers,
and other fit persons, may be called by the Magistrate's authority and
nomination, without any other call, to consult and advise with, about matters
of religion; and although, likewise, the Ministers of Christ, without delegation
from their churches, may of themselves, and by virtue of their office,
meet together synodically in such kirks not yet constituted, yet neither
of these ought to be done in kirks constituted and settled; it being always
free to the Magistrate to advise with synods of ministers and ruling elders,
meeting upon delegation from their churches, either ordinarily, or, being
indicted by his authority, occasionally, and pro re nata; it being
also free to assembly together synodically, as well as pro re nata
as at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by the intrinsical
power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary for the good of
the church so to assemble, in case the Magistrate, to the detriment of
the church, withhold or deny his consent; the necessity of occasional assemblies
being first remonstrate unto him by humble supplication."

The Directory for Worship February 3, 1645, thus:

"Provided always, That the clause in the Directory, of the
administration of the Lord's Supper, which mentioneth the communicants
sitting about the table, or at it, be not interpreted as if, in the judgment
of this kirk, it were indifferent, and free for any of the communicants
not to come to, and receive at the table; or as if we did approve the distributing
of the elements by the minister to each communicant, and not by the communicants
among themselves. It is also provided, That this shall be no prejudice
to the order and practice of this kirk, in such particulars as are appointed
by the books of discipline, the acts of General Assemblies, and are not
otherwise ordered and appointed in the Directory."

The Larger Catechism was approved without exception July
2, and also the Shorter, July 28, 1648. The Form of Church Government had
been approved February 10, 1645, thus:

"Provided always, that his act be no ways prejudicial to the
further discussion and examination of that Article which holds forth, That
the doctor or teacher hath power of the administration of the sacraments,
as well as the pastor; as also of the distinct rights and interests of
presbyteries and people in the calling of ministers; but that it shall
be free to debate or discuss these points, as God shall be pleased to give
further light."

This action of the Church of Scotland with regard to the
manner in which she received the standards, and this important clause in
the 3rd Term of Communion, are not noticed in the Covenant, and, adherence
to the standards is expressed in a sense broad enough for the acceptance
of all the Presbyterian Churches.26

This clause has been objected to, on the ground that the
manner in which the Westminster standards were received by the Church of
Scotland could not be ascertained without examining a small library of
books which were not ordinarily to be had; consequently, it is too much
to require, and in most cases cannot be complied with. Answer: It
requires the reading of the approving acts of the Assembly of the Church
of Scotland, prefixed to the standards as published in one book,
generally known as THE WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION OF FAITH.27

V. The Covenant does not contain an approbation
of the faithful contendings of the martyrs of Jesus, nor a pledge to follow
their "noble example in contending for all divine truths, and in testifying
against all contrary evils, which may exist in the corrupt constitutions
of either Church or State."

It says:

"Taking as our example the faithful in all ages, and, most
of all, the blessed Master Himself, and with our eye fixed upon the great
cloud of witnesses who have sealed with their blood the testimony which
they held, we will strive to hold fast"

These are not the expressions of the 5th Term, nor do they
contain any pledge of approbation. It is said merely, "taking as our example;"
and, as from the wording of the Term, "the martyrs of Jesus, and of the
present covenanted church of Britain and Ireland," it might be inferred
that those who suffered for "a covenanted work of reformation," during
the years of Prelacy's "killing times," are meant, the phrase in the covenant
is, "the faithful in all ages." Is this a specimen of what may be expected
should our Terms ever be subjected to the process of being "simplified
and abbreviated?" But why should there be a pledge in the covenant of identification
with the Martyrs? Because we are pledged by our Term; and if the covenant
is designed to approve of their "faithful contendings," it should say so.
Also, because the identity of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, wherever
she is, with those who sealed her testimony with their blood, requires
it. We do in our Term, as the church hitherto has done. The Reformed Presbytery
says, "The presbytery do hereby heartily approve and homologate the testimony
borne unto the truths and royal prerogatives of Christ, as king of Zion,
by the witnesses and martyrs for the same, from the Restoration anno
1660, to the late Revolution, by protestations, declarations, confiscation
of goods, bonds, imprisonment, banishment, all kinds of cruelty and suffering,
even unto death."28

Our oath in the Solemn League requires it:

"We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this
common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and
defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant, in the maintaining
and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly,
by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and drawn
from this blessed union and conjunction." [Solemn League, Sect. 6.]

This covenant Guthrie, Cargill, Cameron, and Renwick swore,
and we have swornsworn to stand by them, were they alive, preaching, testifying
and suffering for this covenant; and now when dead, we have sworn to stand
by their memoryby their testimony, and to follow their noble example,
in testifying against all evils, which may exist in the corrupt constitutions
of either Church or State.

VI. The Church is bound to extirpate Prelacy.

By the 5th Term of Communion we approve "of the faithful
contendings of the martyrs of Jesus against Paganism, Popery, and Prelacy,
as containing a noble example for us and our posterity to follow."

In the Solemn League we have sworn, "That we shall in
like manner, without respect of persons endeavor the extirpation of Popery,
Prelacy, (that is church government by Archbishops, Bishops, their Chancellors,
and Commissaries, Deans, Deans Chapters, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical
Officers depending on that hierarchy)."

Prelacy has no place in the covenant. "Prelacya system
of polity so dishonoring to God; so utterly opposed to his law. That awful
Prelacy, which shed our fathers' blood in torrents, and scattered their
bones around the grave's devouring mouth, as the wood men do cut and cleave."29

Rev. W. Milroy says, "Popish Prelacy, the high church
in America, is a sapper and miner for the church of Rome."30

Mr. Kennedy in his letter to the Witness says, "Prelacy
is just one of many Protestant denominations, living quietly side by side
with its neighbors, prosecuting its own work." The "fierce, relentless,
intolerant system" of history and Britain, is in America; but, since it
is "living quietly," notwithstanding we are solemn pledged to God for its
extirpation, we will say nothing about it. "Prelacy, whether restrained
by external circumstances, or exercising its 'fierce, relentless intolerance,'
is in principle alike opposed to the teachings of Scripture, the independence
of Christ's Church, and the spiritual interests of men. On the same principle,
we
might say there was no necessity for our specially testifying against Popery.
To a very large extent in the British Islands, it at present is one of
the many denominations 'living quietly side by side with its neighbors,
prosecuting its own work.' (No thanks to it or prelacy for its present
quietness.) Prelacy and Popery are the same in principle that they were
during the middle and towards the close of the 17th century. If it was
right and necessary to abjure them then, why such soft and tender words
regarding any of them now? Our fathers suffered at the hands of 'bloody
Prelacy.' What! Prelacy 'one of the many Protestant denominations living
quietly side by side with its neighbors, prosecuting its own work!!' Could
we ever have supposed a Second Reformation Covenanter could use such language?"31

VII. She is bound to maintain union with and
approve the faithful contendings of the present reformed covenanted Churches
in Britain and Ireland.

See fifth Term of Communion. Our Testimony says, "Every generation
is to take care that the truth, as stated and defended by their predecessors,
shall be maintained and faithfully transmitted, together with the results
of their own contendings, to the succeeding generations."32

Rev. M. Roney commenting on the covenant of the Church
in Ireland says, "The union of the whole Church in one Covenant bond, is
an object which, however unlikely and remote, should not be kept out of
sight. This was evidently contemplated by the Westminster Assembly, and
by the Church of Scotland in the preparation and adoption of the subordinate
standards which they have furnished to the church. It is the proclaimed
design of the Solemn League. The spirit of that noble and comprehensive
bond is cramped and chilled by every attempt at Covenant renovation that
contemplates an object less exalted and glorious than the union of the
whole Covenanted Church in sworn subjection to the Lord."33
Rev. J. M. Wilson says, "The times demand mutual support. Divided as are
the Protestant ranks, there is still a tendency, distinctly manifested,
to overstep the denominational boundaries, under the plea of Christian
liberality and charity. Having tried in vain the storm and tempest, the
enemy now resolves to use other means: to melt those whom he could not
grind and compress. Some have yielded: in part, at least. Nor are wanting
painful evidences that in other lands, the immediate descendents of a glorious
covenanted ancestry are in danger of losing their high position. They begin
to give the hand, we fear, to that very power which is yet stained with
the blood, unrepented of and uncleansed, of Scotland's martyred and honored
dead. Some indications of the same spirit are not wanting elsewhere."34

To the church in Britain and Ireland the Covenant has
no reference.

VII. She has always maintained that it is
the duty of the State to establish and support the true religion.

The two great institutions, or civil government, and the
christian religion, or church and state are friendly powers, and independent
in their respective spheres, one of the other, but under the same moral
regimen, the law of God, and designed by the means peculiar to each, to
advance the same objects, the glory of God on earth, and the best interests
of mankind. Like the "two olive trees" they will pour, through "the golden
pipes," their oil into the common bowl. [Zech. 4.11-12.] Christ's
dominion over the nations, as over all other things, is for the good of
the church. "He is head over all things to the church;" and certainly so
important a part of his empire, as national society, is not exempt
from the duty of exerting its influence for the welfare of that church,
for the special benefit of which Christ is exalted "Lord of all." As civil
government is subjected to Him, it is with the intent that, in its administration,
it shall contribute to the welfare of Zion. And this is done by a national
embrace of his religion to the exclusion of all others, and an engagement
to its support."35

The Confession of Faith says, "The civil magistrate may
not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or
the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: yet he hath authority,
and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in
the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies
and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline
prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated,
and observed." [WCF. 23:4]

Rev. D. Scott, in "Distinctive Principles," says, "It
is the duty of a nation to furnish the means of supporting religion. The
support intended is not that which may be obtained from the voluntary liberality
of individuals, but that which is secured by national provision;" and adduces
the following in proof:

"1. The example of the Jewish commonwealth.

2. Prophecy. "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the tops
of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations
shall flow unto it." [Isaiah 2.2.] "And kings shall be thy nursing
fathers, and their queens thy nursing-mothers." [Isaiah 49.23.]
"The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings
of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea all kings shall fall down before
him: all nations shall serve him." [Psalm 72.10,11.] "The kingdoms
of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ."
[Rev. 11.15.]

3. Nations are bound to provide for the support of religion,
because they are moral persons.

4. The ends to be accomplished by civil government demonstrate
the obligation of nations to provide for the support of religion."36

There is nothing of civil establishment and support, in the
covenant. Rev. W. Milroy says: "The grand leading principle of both
the Covenants to which allusion has just been made," the Covenants National
and Solemn League, "is not, we apprehend, embraced in our present bond
at all, or if at all, only by implication, viz: the duty of the State,
as
such, to enter into alliance with the Church of Christ, and to
profess,
adhere to, and maintain the true religion."37

PART VIII.

CHARGES AGAINST THE COVENANT.

Besides the essential omissions stated in the proceeding
Section, the Covenant is chargeable as follows:

1. It is not a renewal of the Covenants National and Solemn
League. See Part VI.

2. It is not an adherence to them. See same Part.

3. It is a substitute for our Covenants National and Solemn
League. Those who dissented say in their reasons, "It is a new Covenant,
entirely distinct from and a substitute for our present Covenants."38
Rev. R. Gibson says of the New Light covenant, "This covenant was evidently
intended to be a substitute for all the old covenants, referred
to in our 'Terms of Ecclesiastical Communion,' if not in place of the 'Terms'
themselves." "The draught, as it returned from Europe, recognized, and
expressly asserted, in the body of the covenant, the binding obligation
of the ancient covenants of our fathers; but this instrument, as
it leaves Eleventh-street Church, Dr. Wylie, and his ecclesiastical friends,
neither directly nor indirectly acknowledges such binding
and descending obligations on Covenanters in America; and this seems
the more strange, considering that such obligation is expressly stated
in the 'Terms of Communion.'"39
Does this read as if he were speaking of Synod's Covenant?

4. It necessitates a radical change in our Terms of Communion.
Not a simplifying and abbreviating, an attempt at which had better not
be made, but a radical change. That our Terms may conform to the Covenant,
adherence to the Westminster standards, "as received by the Church of
Scotland" must be struck out; also the names of the Covenants National
and Solemn Leaguetheir descending obligationthe approbation of the faithful
contendings of the martyrs and present reformed covenanted churches in
Britain and Ireland, and their contendings against Prelacy, must be stricken
out. None of these, as we have seen, are in the Covenant.

5. It conflicts with the covenant which every member of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America has sworn and sealed
at the holy table of the Lord. Compare the covenant with the Terms of Communion.

6. It conflicts with the covenant entered into with God
and his church by ministers, elders, and deacons in the day they were solemnly
set apart and ordained. Compare the covenant and formula of queries put
at ordination.

7. It lowers the tone and weakens the point of our Testimony.
See the omissions enumerated at Part VII., and the changes it necessitates
in the Terms. Had the persecuted Covenanters when suffering at the hands
of "bloody Prelacy," relinquished their adherence to the covenants
and adopted such a covenant as this, fewer would have suffered at its hands.

8. It is contrary to our oath approving the doctrines
contained in the "Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church in North America." In Chapter 33, Section 3, we have said, "The
Church may not recede from a more clear and particular testimony to a more
general and evasive one; but the witnesses must proceed in finishing their
testimony, rendering it more pointed and complete, until God shall, according
to his promise, overthrow the empire of darkness, and introduce the millennial
state, in which the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as
the water over the sea."

9. It contains a number of phrases at which strangers
to our literature, young persons, and possibly others, are compelled to
pause and enquire. Instance"The accepted manuals of the faith of the church""our
recognized and approved manuals of faith and order""Our own vows and the
covenants of our fathers""The covenants of our worthy religious progenitors""All
that is moral in the covenants""All forms of ecclesiastical polity""Systems
of false religion and will-worship." At each of these it may be necessary
to ask, which? What?

10. It prepares the way for confederacies destructive
to the distinctive position of the members of the church. It is not optional
with those who swear the covenant to join associations in which are Unitarians,
Universalists, and professors in no denomination, but whose boast it is
that they are non-denominational; it pledges them on their solemn oath
"to cultivate a holy brotherhood," and "strive to maintain christian friendship
with pious men of every name."

PART IX.

THE REASONS WHY SOME WHO DO NOT LIKE THECOVENANT SWEAR IT.

1. "The Synod almost unanimously swore it; and so large
a body of learned and pious men, certainly could not be wrong. Therefore,
if there is wrong, and we feel as if there were somewhere, it is possibly
in ourselves, and we will swallow our scruples." The intention of those
who reason thus, is not to resign their guidance in this important matter
into the hands of their fellow men; and yet they really do so.

2. "The obscurity and insignificancy of those who were
opposed to it when sworn in Synod, shows that their causes, if they have
any, promises exceedingly unfavorable; therefore, though we do not like
'the covenant,' to stand out with them would not add to our respectability
or ecclesiastical prospects."

It is not known how Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the
son of Jephunneh ranked in affluence and influence with their fellow delegates,
"heads of the children of Israel," when they were sent to report on the
prospects of Canaan, but it is well known that they were the only persons
who were faithful; and whether prominent or obscure before, their fidelity
on that occasion brought them into unusual and even enviable notice. We
know, indeed, that Elijah, publicly stood alone true to the covenant of
his God in Israel's great apostacy; but, it will be said, and truly, that
he was no ordinary mana prophet a man of astonishing power. All true,
but it was the cause of God, and his stand in it, that made him all he
was. When he fled from Jezebel and lodged in the wilderness, he was like
Samson shorn. Joseph of Arimathea, was rich and a counselor, but it is
probably that his night-visit to Christ had more to do with not having
consented "to the counsel and deed" of the Sanhedrim, than his learning
and his riches. "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the
Lord of hosts."

3. "The covenant as amended and explained by the resolution
of Synod, makes it entirely or in good measure satisfactory." The only
alteration made in it, considering the confession of sins and the covenant
as one instrument, is the appending of these words to the confession as
overtured: "in obedience to the command of God, conformably to the practice
of the godly in former times, and recognizing all that is moral in the
covenants of our worthy religious progenitors of the Second Reformation."
This is not a confession, it is not a part of the covenant; it is a statement,
and the only part of the statement affecting any thing, is"recognizing
all that is moral in the covenants of our worthy religious progenitors
of the Second Reformation."

Notice the indefiniteness; "the covenants," any,
all covenantsand the careful avoiding of names. Had it been the wish to
recognize the National and Solemn League, how easily and appropriately
could their names have been inserted! Note also, "Our religious progenitors,"
not "Our fathers" and "Of the Second Reformation," not of Scotland only,
or of any place particularly. This is a studied generalizing. Turn to the
resolution, which synod, after this insertion, found it necessary to pass"Resolved,
That in order to satisfy the scruples of some members of Synod, we understand
that the expression of 'Covenants of the Second Reformation,' includes
(not means) the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and
Covenants of the three kingdoms." Observe, Synod voted down the amendment
to insert the names of the Covenants in the statement which it appended
to the confession. Why this refusal to admit their names into the document,
and admit them in a resolution? Also, observe, that as their names are
not in the document which is given to the public, and for all time, but
in the minutes of Synod, the reference to them will soon be lost sight
of by all; except the few of the present generation, who are interested.
To all others, it will be as though it had not been. Further, Synod in
this resolution explains an expression which nowhere occurs, in confession,
covenant, nor statement. The "expression" in the statement is, "the covenants
of our worthy religious progenitors of the Second Reformation;" the "explanation"
is of the expression "Covenants of the second Reformation." Why this limping?
Can it be, that persons who were fixed in their belief that there was enough
wanting in the covenant before Synod met to prevent them from swearing
the oath, do it now, when, after all the mending, and resolving, the oath
remains the same exactly as it was. No phrase or word has been added or
changes. Has it come to this, that Covenanters will swear on oath because
they are allowed to understand and explain? If so, one may understand it
in one way, another in a different way; one with an explanation, another
without; and another will not swear it at alland this too, about an oath
which is intended to be one of the most important means of union ordained
of God.

PART X.

THE COVENANTS NATIONAL AND SOLEMN LEAGUEMUST BE MAINTAINED.

1. We have pledged ourselves in the most solemn manner
to maintain them. The vows of God are upon us. We have opened our mouth
unto the Lord and we cannot go back. Their principles are the principles
of the word of Godthe principles which the church and all the nations
of the world should profess and practice. By our profession and oath we
espouse these, and place ourselves side by side with the original Covenanters.
We esteem their deeds as the most important in the history of mankind,
embracing in their design whatever is great and precious in the cause of
religion and liberty. We would habitually feel the obligation these federal
deeds lay upon us; and the language of our hearts would be that of the
concluding expressions of the Solemn League"This Covenant we make in the
presence of Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, with a true intention
to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets
of all hearts shall be disclosed; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen
us by his Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings
with such success, as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and
encouragement to other christian churches, groaning under, or in danger
of the yoke of Antichristian tyranny, to join in the same or like association
and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus
Christ, and the peace and tranquility of christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

2. They are too precious and important, and have cost
too much in suffering, treasure, and blood by the dear saints of God to
be given up or neglected. We will keep them as an inviolable trust, an
inestimable treasure, and most worthy legacy; involving the glory of Immanuel,
the glory of His church, and the highest interests of humanity. We will
gather up the mementoes of the battle-fields of the Covenants; and as their
unworthy compatriots in the cause of liberty and religion, we will display
on our highest places, the tattered, blood-stained banner of their devoted
defenders. We will memorize their deeds, repeat their sayings and imitate
their noble example, "in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying
against all contrary evils which may exist in the corrupt constitutions
of either Church or State."

3. They may, and many are persuaded they will, be the
rallying-ground of those who must yet battle for truth. When that time
comes, the controversy will transfer itself into the historic field. The
battle with the enemy at the gates will shift its scene to the graves of
the fathers, and the monuments of the old Past. There will be then an anxious
tendency to inquire into the creeds and deeds of the fore-fathers. The
history of old battles will be eagerly read, and the forgotten watchwords
of the Reformation revived. The fathers will receive the honors of a partial
resurrection, as their sons disinter and relieve them from the foul cerements
in which they have been enwrapped, and the lying epitaphs under which they
were buried, by the lewd and godless age which succeeded them.40
And as they look on the stalwart proportions of these worthies, though
convicted of comparative degeneracy, their pulse will be accelerated, and
their zeal rekindled. The consciousness of standing on the same ground,
and battling with the same enemies for the same truths, will stimulate
to heroic deeds.

That severe trials are yet to be passed through by the
witnesses of Jesus Christ, ere the morning of millennial glory shall dawn
upon the world, can hardly be doubted by those who compare the language
of prophecy with the signs of the times. Popery, in league with all the
despots of the old world, has boldly attacked the remaining Protestantism,
which the timid and unprincipled policy of statesmen has gradually lowered
in the sight of the nations; and it requires no great amount of sagacity
to foretell, that the results of this aggression shall not have fully manifested
themselves till the old conflict between Popery and Protestantism shall
be fairly renewed, and the battles of the Reformation shall have been fought
over again. In the midst of the conflict which must ensue, yea, which is
even now commenced, may not all those who are strong and of good courage,
and whose heart stir them up to do battle at all hazards on behalf of the
great cause of the Protestant Reformation, deem it dutiful, in order to
save the empire from the dreadful vortex of Popish ascendancy, to fall
back on the vantage ground of the British Covenants, and thus a high
degree of union and uniformity may be promoted among the various evangelical
denominations. A consummation so devoutly to be longed and labored for,
is at least within the bounds of probability; but even although hearts
that tremble for the ark of God, should not in the mean time be gladdened
with the realization of such a pleasing hope, it is not the less a duty
of all such as endeavor to maintain intact that high vantage ground,
and to display to the nations the blood-stained banner of CHRIST'S
CROWN AND COVENANT, with the
assured hope that the time is drawing near when the great principles of
the Second Reformation, will be as highly honored as they have been long
ignominiously trampled upon.41

4. Their principles shall yet prevail and fill the earth
with holiness and happiness. Hetherington speaking of the Solemn League
and Covenant, says, it is "the wisest, sublimest and most sacred document
ever framed by uninspired men," and asks, "Has it perished amid the strife
of tongues? Has it sunk into oblivion, and ceased to be a living element
in the quick realms of thought? Are there none by whom it is regarded with
sacred veneration? Is it not true, that at this very moment, there are
many minds of great power and energy earnestly engaged in reviving its
mighty principles, and fearlessly holding them forth before the world's
startled gaze? And if such be the case, may it not be, that what two hundred
years ago was premature, has now nearly reached the period of its full
maturity, and is on the point of raising up its sacred and majestic hand,
strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might." Nor can the day be
distant. Messiah reigns till all his enemies are made his footstool. The
kingdom shall be given to the saints of the Most High, and they shall possess
it for ever and ever. The nations shall yet turn unto the Lord. Earth's
fat ones shall eat and worship. The reign of the Anointed shall reach from
the river unto the ends of the earth. The Angel of the everlasting gospel,
and the open Bible are taking possession for him, of every land. Paganism
is demolishing its idols. The Pope is sceptreless. Antichrist of the east
is passing away "without hands." The world is ripe for and expecting changes.
The Church anxiously awaits "the day of her redemption." Soon the trumpet
of the world's jubilee shall sound and the hierarchies of heaven proclaim,
"the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of
his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever." Lift up then, the Redeemer's
banner. Read its inscription, "Cross, Crown, and Covenant." Inscribe it
anew, in the finest gold of Ophir, and wave it high in the sight of his
distracted friends, and confederated enemies. This standard shall yet rally
his subjects, and gather multitudes to him from the ends of the earth;
it shall distinguish his friends, and unite them; it shall direct their
movements; it shall animate their hearts and intimidate their foes; it
shall embolden his faithful followers in the conflict, secure the victory,
and wave gloriously in the triumph.42

PART XI.

PARTING COUNSEL.

There is a rap at your door to ascertain whether the spirit
of the Scottish Covenanters slumbers within. If you sit the call, you may
sleep for another quarter of a century.

The Reformed Presbyterian Church is in great danger at
this crisis of the moral world. That danger is not from the sword. There
is a political guarantee against direct persecution; and there is a moral
guarantee stronger than even our republican institutions, in the common
sense of the community. Reproach is painful; but it is a bloodless persecution.
Neglect and contempt are unpleasant; but rarely to be apprehended by talent
employed in active benevolent usefulness. The greatest danger is from ourselves;
for if this Church perish in America before the Millennium, its death is
inflicted by its own Synod. Its constitution is good; its principles and
usages are well defined; but its interests are about to be confided to
the management of another generation than that which laid its foundation,
and raised its well-proportioned superstructure. Innovation, inaction,
or misguided action, may inflict a mortal malady. The name may linger,
but the society, in either case, is gone.43

Serious consequences follow unfaithfulness in Covenant
engagements. You show contempt to the divine law. You rebel against the
divine authority, manifested in the law. You profane the ordinance of God's
appointment, intended as a special means of promoting a contrary course
of conduct. You represent God as a willing witness of your perfidy in your
engagement. You pour contempt upon him, as the guarantee of his own law,
and avenger in case of perjury. Contrary to truth, you plunge into deceit.
Contrary to equity, you rob God of his due. Contrary to good neighborhood,
you render yourself a plague, and a curse to society. Contrary to the end
of your creation and preservation, you reject the glory of God. And, in
a word, persevering in this course of conduct, nothing but a fearful looking
for of judgment awaits you. Resolve, then, my brethren, in the strength
of grace, to say with the Psalmist, I have sworn, and I will perform it,
that I will keep thy righteous judgments.44

While we confidently expect and fervently pray for a revival
of a Covenanted Reformation, let us see that we are personally in Covenant
with God. If not, all our zeal for and fidelity to the National and Solemn
League and Covenant will go for nothing. All Covenants approved of God
are founded on the Covenant of grace; and cannot be acceptably entered
into, nor properly maintained, without faith in the Mediator. No profession,
no zeal will compensate for deficiency here. Let us betake ourselves to
Christ, and trust for acceptance only IN THE BLOOD OF THE
EVERLASTING COVENANT.

"Nor hath the spirit fled that nerved each hand,
And fired each heart in that devoted band;
Again the trumpet-call to arms is heard,
And all the camp from end to end is stirred:
Again the banner floats upon the air;
Still are these words emblazoned there
CHRIST'S CROWN AND COVENANT.
Ho! all ye who prize
The rights your fathers died for, wake, arise!
In one firm phalanx, one united band,
Undaunted and unflinching, take your stand;
Calm yet unmoved, constant and undismayed,
What powers soe'er against you be arrayed.
* * * * *
* * * * * *
* * *
Bear on that banner still, and let it float
O'er thine own land, and far 'mid realms remote,
Secure it still shall stand the high decree,
That to this king all flesh shall bow the knee,
And every tongue shall be constrained to own
That He is Lord o'er all, and He alone."